Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 41
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

yeah man i get ya now , so is there any one out there that can tell me for sure that removing the bov will defanitly cause damage to my turbo ?

There will always be people out there that say it defiantly will and others will say defiantly wont.

IMO the cars come with a stock BOV for a reason so regardless of whether its damaging to the turbo ide just leave it on (plumb back or atmo your choice)

A mate of mine ran his to4z on his rb26 for over 2 years with no BOV and never had issues, it probably is bad for your turbo over the long run but we are probably talking a very long time!

but if it is a bush bearing turbo apparently the damage occurs much sooner

Even if its not doing damage you loose efficiency because of the back pressure on the turbo . . . .

Blowoff valves are used to prevent compressor surge, a phenomenon that readily occurs when lifting off the throttle of an unvented, turbocharged engine. When the throttle plate on a turbocharged engine closes, the high pressure air in the intake system is trapped by the throttle and a pressure wave is forced back into the compressor. The compressor wheel slows rapidly and may even stall, and the driver will notice a fluttering air sound. The rapid slowing or stalling stresses the turbo and imparts severe turbo lag if the driver accelerates immediately after the surge event.

Quoted from good old wikipedia :3some:

A mate of mine ran his to4z on his rb26 for over 2 years with no BOV and never had issues, it probably is bad for your turbo over the long run but we are probably talking a very long time!

but if it is a bush bearing turbo apparently the damage occurs much sooner

Zachary!

I will affect the life of your turbo, but no damage so that you will notice it. But if you were to look at it as that if you had a BOV then your turbo will last longer then if you didnt have one then yes damage occurs.

Lets say 200,000 klm turbo life with BOV. to

180,000 klm turbo life without BOV.

It's not something that can be documented effectively, and also chances are that something else would cause your turbo to shit itself before this time anyway, like oil contamination.

There will always be people out there that say it defiantly will and others will say defiantly wont.

IMO the cars come with a stock BOV for a reason so regardless of whether its damaging to the turbo ide just leave it on (plumb back or atmo your choice)

??

stock ca's dont come with bov's

stock fj's dont come with bov's

check this out http://fdowners.com/showthread.php?t=217

'But at the end of the day. We could turn this into a 5yr long thread debating whether or not u NEEEEED them.

compression surge is not healthy unless u live in vic and drive a VL ? and go to bell st maccers

i loled :)

yeah man i get ya now , so is there any one out there that can tell me for sure that removing the bov will defanitly cause damage to my turbo ?

yep, i wouldnt do it, especially on a brand new turbo - if it was the stock turbz and i was looking to upgrade in the near future i'd be more inclined to block it off

bov's are shit.. enough said.

and what turbo are you running?

won't affect turbo life noticeably. May affect turbo efficiency ie more lag. Does it really matter? All you need to know is if you have a BOV and want it to be legal make sure it is plumbed back into the intake. /End thread.

This is a very interesting topic and makes me feel like I've been living under a rock as I never new that you could run a turbo charged engine without a BOV. I've quite enjoyed reading this thread.

I see there is no definitive answer so one would have to conclude that if you think its right for your cars setup than so be it. Some people like black some people like white none are wrong or better than the other just a personal preference.

In my opinion a factory BOV setup is to make the cars 'nice to drive' with minimal engine bay noises. They may also help meet certain emission standards. And possibly aid in the re-spool of the turbo between gears how ever marginal the difference would be.

It would be interesting to know how many people are running 'NO' BOV with there factory turbo's and if they have experienced any problems and or failure?

As I am keen to try a 'NO' BOV setup on my factory Toyota Caldina GT-4. Also how much boost can safely be run on a factory turbo with 'NO' BOV? Is there any tuners who specialize in these setups?

Great thread guys I hope we can find some solid Pro's and Con's for both setups.

Maybe someone could start a poll to see haw many people out there run what setup?

This is a very interesting topic and makes me feel like I've been living under a rock as I never new that you could run a turbo charged engine without a BOV. I've quite enjoyed reading this thread.

I see there is no definitive answer so one would have to conclude that if you think its right for your cars setup than so be it. Some people like black some people like white none are wrong or better than the other just a personal preference.

In my opinion a factory BOV setup is to make the cars 'nice to drive' with minimal engine bay noises. They may also help meet certain emission standards. And possibly aid in the re-spool of the turbo between gears how ever marginal the difference would be.

It would be interesting to know how many people are running 'NO' BOV with there factory turbo's and if they have experienced any problems and or failure?

As I am keen to try a 'NO' BOV setup on my factory Toyota Caldina GT-4. Also how much boost can safely be run on a factory turbo with 'NO' BOV? Is there any tuners who specialize in these setups?

Great thread guys I hope we can find some solid Pro's and Con's for both setups.

Maybe someone could start a poll to see haw many people out there run what setup?

You can run as much boost as you usually would....running NO BOV should create less problems really.

White is better though :P

:D I think I'll leave that one alone...

You can run as much boost as you usually would....running NO BOV should create less problems really.

Cheers mate. I might give it a go soon.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • I know why it happened and I’m embarrassed to say but I was testing the polarity of one of the led bulb to see which side was positive with a 12v battery and that’s when it decided to fry hoping I didn’t damage anything else
    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
×
×
  • Create New...